I play Hi/LO, in a 5/6 game !
1)About side count sevens: If after 2 decks dealt, 50 % of the sevens were dealt, do I have an additional advantage, if my regular true count at this moment is +2 ?
2)If after 4,5 decks ALL! aces are gone and the TC is positive, is it useful to bet, because no chance of a BJ?
3)What about splitting 99 vs. 10, if TC is positive, I just was thinking of it, that we split 88 vs. 10.
Thanks for any input
I would recommend not bothering to keep sidecounts. A while back I asked about side-counting Aces for insurance dicisions and Don Schlesinger's answer was the best: "Fuggettabout it!". Most experts agreed that results from keeping a side-count are very small compared to the effort involved.
But one of your questions did not involve a sidecount: the index for surrendering 88v10 is +2. I always hate splitting 88v10 and when the count gets high, I like just loosing half my bet, rather than twice my bet a whole lot more!
> I play Hi/LO, in a 5/6 game !
> 1)About side count sevens: If after 2 decks
> dealt, 50 % of the sevens were dealt, do I
> have an additional advantage, if my regular
> true count at this moment is +2 ?
> 2)If after 4,5 decks ALL! aces are gone and
> the TC is positive, is it useful to bet,
> because no chance of a BJ?
> 3)What about splitting 99 vs. 10, if TC is
> positive, I just was thinking of it, that we
> split 88 vs. 10.
> Thanks for any input
> 1)About side count sevens: If after 2 decks
> dealt, 50 % of the sevens were dealt, do I
> have an additional advantage, if my regular
> true count at this moment is +2 ?
> 2)If after 4,5 decks ALL! aces are gone and
> the TC is positive, is it useful to bet,
> because no chance of a BJ?
> 3)What about splitting 99 vs. 10, if TC is
> positive, I just was thinking of it, that we
> split 88 vs. 10.
1) The sevens do not affect the EV by much (compared to aces, tens, fives, etc.). Keeping a side count of sevens is a waste of time. Keeping a side count of aces for betting purposes has the most positive effect when comparing various side counts.
2) If I do not remember wrong, you should, in this case, subtract the running count with -6, as no aces remain to be played and 1,5 decks remain to me played. The ?formula? is (once again I am not 100% sure) +/-1 on the running count, depending on whether there is an excess or shortage of aces per half deck. When there?s an excess, you add +1 for each extra ace per half deck, and reverse the meaning.
3) First of all you do not split 88 vs. 10 to win! You do it to lose less. It will cost you regardless what you do. Splitting though, will cost you the least. Splitting 9?s is not a good move, especially not when the count is positive. The dealer then has a greater chance of getting a 20, and will outperform you potential 19?s.
/Robert V. Lux
Did you type wrong, or have I missed something during my blackjack education? Since when is the number of remaining aces relevant in insurance situations? That won't help you much in determin whether to buy insurance or not.
Also, keeping an ace side count sure is worth the effort, if you consider the increase of BE. The deeper the penetration, the more importance does an ace side count have, since extreme positive TC;s will occur more frequently.
/Robert V. Lux
> I would recommend not bothering to keep
> sidecounts. A while back I asked about
> side-counting Aces for insurance dicisions
> and Don Schlesinger's answer was the best:
> "Fuggettabout it!". Most experts
> agreed that results from keeping a
> side-count are very small compared to the
> effort involved.
> Did you type wrong, or have I missed
> something during my blackjack education?
> Since when is the number of remaining aces
> relevant in insurance situations? That won't
> help you much in determin whether to buy
> insurance or not.
The discussion was about whether to keep an Ace side count for Hi-Lo. Obviously, knowing the number of Aces remaining will help you to make better insurance decisions than if you only know the Hi-Lo TC.
> I play Hi/LO, in a 5/6 game !
That's a good game. Two of your questions, however, revolve around the use of side counts that buy you very little additional advantage when playing shoe games. The advice stated by the previous posters is sound. You should probably just forget about the side counts.
> 1)About side count sevens: If after 2 decks
> dealt, 50 % of the sevens were dealt, do I
> have an additional advantage, if my regular
> true count at this moment is +2 ?
Yes, but it's not much. From a betting standpoint, a 7 is worth "roughly" 1/2 as much as the 2 - 6 cards. In your example, you'd be 4 7's poor, so you could technically add about +2 to your running count (+8 in your example -- to about +10) increasing your TC from +2 to around +2.5.
> 2)If after 4,5 decks ALL! aces are gone and
> the TC is positive, is it useful to bet,
> because no chance of a BJ?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but the short answer is, if you don't neutralize (count as 0) the ace in your primary count, your TC (for betting purposes) has already been adjusted for the shortage of aces. That's the whole idea behind ace-reckoned systems. The BE (betting efficiency) of Hi-Lo is around 96%-97% or so. You're not going to get much higher by adjusting for aces. If your TC is +2 or better, you still have an advantage worth exploiting.
Where you gain efficiency side counting aces with Hi-Lo is in PE (playing efficiency) and IC (insurance correlation).
> 3)What about splitting 99 vs. 10, if TC is
> positive, I just was thinking of it, that we
> split 88 vs. 10.
Trust the math on this one. Robert's answer above was right on about 8,8 vs. 10 being a defensive play. Don't split 9,9 vs. 10.
> Thanks for any input
No problem...
> Did you type wrong, or have I missed
> something during my blackjack education?
> Since when is the number of remaining aces
> relevant in insurance situations? That won't
> help you much in determin whether to buy
> insurance or not.
Side counting aces raises the IC for Hi-Lo from about 76% to about 89%. The problem stems from counting the ace as -1 when, for ideal IC purposes, it should be counted as +1.
> Also, keeping an ace side count sure is
> worth the effort, if you consider the
> increase of BE. The deeper the penetration,
> the more importance does an ace side count
> have, since extreme positive TC;s will occur
> more frequently.
Perhaps I've missed something in my BJ education, but how does side counting aces increase the BE of Hi-Lo? And why would extreme TC's be affected by the side count at higher penetration levels?
> Perhaps I've missed something in my BJ
> education, but how does side counting aces
> increase the BE of Hi-Lo? And why would
> extreme TC's be affected by the side count
> at higher penetration levels?
I think (hope) he meant that a side count of Aces would increase the PE of Hi-Lo. Obviously, it would not help with the BE.
> That's a good game. Two of your questions,
> however, revolve around the use of side
> counts that buy you very little additional
> advantage when playing shoe games. The
> advice stated by the previous posters is
> sound. You should probably just forget about
> the side counts.
> Yes, but it's not much. From a betting
> standpoint, a 7 is worth "roughly"
> 1/2 as much as the 2 - 6 cards. In your
> example, you'd be 4 7's poor, so you could
> technically add about +2 to your running
> count (+8 in your example -- to about +10)
> increasing your TC from +2 to around +2.5.
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but the
> short answer is, if you don't neutralize
> (count as 0) the ace in your primary count,
> your TC (for betting purposes) has already
> been adjusted for the shortage of aces.
> That's the whole idea behind ace-reckoned
> systems. The BE (betting efficiency) of
> Hi-Lo is around 96%-97% or so. You're not
> going to get much higher by adjusting for
> aces. If your TC is +2 or better, you still
> have an advantage worth exploiting.
> Where you gain efficiency side counting aces
> with Hi-Lo is in PE (playing efficiency) and
> IC (insurance correlation).
> Trust the math on this one. Robert's answer
> above was right on about 8,8 vs. 10 being a
> defensive play. Don't split 9,9 vs. 10.
> No problem...
THanks for the very helpful answers.
I had the following intensions to ask:
1) About the aces: I heard, that the house edge would be like 2%, if the BJ payout would be evenmoney.
So I ask myself, why should I bet at a TC of +2 or 3, if ALL the aces are gone after 4,5 decks.
2)I knew, that we lose less money, if splitting 88. vs. 10
Why not losing less, if splitting 99 vs. 10 ?
Maybe it?s just BS.
> THanks for the very helpful answers.
> I had the following intensions to ask:
> 1) About the aces: I heard, that the house
> edge would be like 2%, if the BJ payout
> would be evenmoney.
> So I ask myself, why should I bet at a TC of
> +2 or 3, if ALL the aces are gone after 4,5
> decks.
It's not the same thing at all. Remember, if all the aces are gone, the dealer can't get a blackjack either. An abundance of tens still gives the player an edge, even with all the aces gone. As someone pointed out, ace-reckoned counts take this into consideration. At +2 or +3 you still have an edge, even with no aces - perhaps not as great an edge, but still an edge.
> 2)I knew, that we lose less money, if
> splitting 88. vs. 10
> Why not losing less, if splitting 99 vs. 10
> ?
> Maybe it?s just BS.
Think about it. If you don't split that hand, with 8's you have one of the worst hands possible - a 16. OTOH, if you don't split the 9's you have an 18 - still a weak hand against a 10 upcard, but far better than a 16. So standing wins out over splitting.
Or, you may simply accept the short answer, which has always worked for me:
Why do we [insert any play you want]?
Because the computer says to.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks